Cyclones get names but deadly heatwaves don’t. Should Australia personalise severe weather?
- Written by The Conversation
Australia’s climate is changing rapidly due to rising global greenhouse gas emissions. Extreme weather events such as tropical cyclones, east coast low pressure systems, flash floods, droughts, bushfires, severe storms, and both land and marine heatwaves are becoming increasingly common, as the National Climate Risk Assessment makes clear.
These can overwhelm emergency and medical services, damage infrastructure, and lead to deaths and morbidities.
Yet only some extreme weather events receive names.
Last November, for example, the Northern Territory was hit by Severe Tropical Cyclone Fina, while much of Australia was about to swelter through an unnamed heatwave.
Could there be benefits to giving a name to all of our extreme weather?
A short history of naming storms
In Australia, the only severe weather events that receive formal names are tropical cyclones.
Tropical cyclones are named alphabetically, with names occasionally skipped under specific protocols (such as for high-profile political figures). In March 2025, for example, “Anthony” was replaced with Cyclone Alfred.
Other weather events are treated differently. Large bushfires often receive informal names based on dates or locations – such as Black Saturday or the Black Summer fires – while smaller bushfires typically go unnamed.
Internationally, formal naming of tropical weather systems expanded after 1950. In 1979, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) assumed responsibility for coordinating tropical cyclone names globally.
Australia follows this framework. The Bureau of Meteorology names cyclones in Australian waters using regional lists coordinated through the WMO, retiring names linked to particularly destructive events such as Cyclone Tracy, Yasi and Debbie.
By contrast, other extreme weather – including east coast lows, major floods and heatwaves – remain unnamed, despite often causing comparable damage.
The power of a name
Names can make hazards more memorable. Research shows naming weather events helps people recall warnings, share information and prepare more effectively.
The United Kingdom’s Met Office found named storms generated higher media engagement and public awareness. People were quicker to secure property, cancel travel and heed official advice.
In contrast, events described only by technical labels, such as an “intense low-pressure system” or a “prolonged heat event”, may not capture public attention as well.
Read more: The ocean can look deceptively calm – until it isn’t. Here's what ‘hazardous surf’ really means
The same logic underpins naming cyclones: short, distinctive names reduce confusion when multiple storms occur at once and improve communication across agencies, media and the public.
Yet despite their impact, many of Australia’s deadliest weather events – especially heatwaves – still arrive nameless. East coast lows too, although potentially highly destructive, aren’t named.
A 2024 study evaluated Seville’s first named heatwave, Zoe, and found people who remembered its name were more likely to take safety precautions – such as staying indoors or checking on others – and expressed greater trust in their local government’s response.
Although only about a third of participants recalled the name, the research provided the first real-world evidence that naming heatwaves can improve public awareness and protective behaviour.
Not all research supports naming heatwaves. A 2025 study by UK researchers found no clear evidence naming heatwaves increased public concern or protective behaviour.
In controlled experiments with participants in England and Italy, naming a heatwave – even with emotive labels like Lucifer – had little impact on how people perceived risk or planned to respond.
The WMO has also expressed caution about naming heatwaves, arguing that it may misdirect attention. While acknowledging heat poses a major and growing public health threat, the organisation concluded naming individual heatwaves could shift focus away from critical messaging – namely, who is at risk and what actions to take.
A scene of devastation in Darwin in 1974, after Cyclone Tracy struck early on Christmas morning.
Anonymous/AAP
Should Australia follow?
Australia faces a unique communication challenge due to the wide range of weather events we experience. Some extreme weather events – such as east coast lows and major flood systems – are discrete, trackable phenomena more comparable to tropical cyclones than to diffuse hazards like heatwaves.
Past east coast lows have caused major disruption and loss of life, including the 1974 storm that drove the MV Sygna ashore near Newcastle and the storm that ran the Pasha Bulker aground in 2007.
For these, naming could meaningfully improve communication, recognition, and preparedness without the same drawbacks the WMO highlights for heatwaves.
That does not mean naming should be adopted indiscriminately. Names carry social and cultural meaning, and poorly designed systems risk confusion or unintended stigma. Any expansion of naming practices would need to be carefully designed, evidence-based and clearly linked to public safety outcomes.
Rather than adopting naming wholesale, Australia could benefit from a multidisciplinary review led by the Bureau of Meteorology, involving emergency services, public-health experts, social scientists and communications specialists.
Such a review could assess whether naming additional extreme weather events would improve warning effectiveness as climate change continues to increase the frequency and intensity of dangerous weather.
